Revisiting Teacher Feedback in EFL Writing from Sociocultural Perspectives

Drawing on mediated learning experience MLE theory, this article discusses the limitations of conventional feedback approaches in English as a foreign language school contexts and unders

THE FORUM

TESOL Quarterly invites commentary on current trends or practices in the TESOL profession It also welcomes responses to rebuttals to any articles or remarks published here in The Forum or elsewhere in the Quarterly.

Revisiting Teacher Feedback in EFL Writing from Sociocultural Perspectives

ICY LEE

Chinese University of Hong Kong

Hong Kong

While research on teacher feedback has largely been influenced by

perspectives, little attention has been paid to the contextual and sociocultural dimension of teachers’ work Overall, there is a dearth

of discussion on teacher feedback that is influenced by sociocultural perspectives Drawing on mediated learning experience (MLE) theory, this article discusses the limitations of conventional feedback approaches in English as a foreign language school contexts and underscores the need to replace these approaches with more effective practices typical for the process-oriented writing classroom, so that feedback can mediate student learning Informed by activity theory (AT), the article further suggests that providing MLE as a new object

of the feedback system and introducing other innovations can lead to more effective feedback and help students improve learning The article concludes with suggestions for research informed by MLE and

AT perspectives

doi: 10.1002/tesq.153

& Research on teacher feedback has largely been influenced by second language (L2) writing and second language acquisition (SLA) perspectives, with the bulk of the studies focusing on the impact of different feedback strategies on the overall effectiveness of student texts on the one hand, and learners’ acquisition of specific target structures on the other Although feedback is delivered by different teachers to different learners in different contexts, very little research

has captured the contextual and sociocultural dimension of teachers’ work (see Goldstein, 2001, 2006; Hyland & Hyland, 2006) Overall, there is a dearth of discussion on teacher feedback that is influenced

by sociocultural perspectives The purpose of this article is to discuss how a sociocultural lens informed by mediated learning experience (MLE) and activity theory (AT) is able to shed new light on teacher feedback in English as a foreign language (EFL) writing classrooms Using MLE, the article uncovers the limitations of conventional feedback approaches in EFL school contexts (which are dominated by

a focus on errors in single-draft classrooms; Lee, 2011) and argues for the need to replace these approaches with more effective practices typical for the process-oriented writing classroom so that feedback can mediate student learning Informed by AT, the article further suggests that providing MLE as a new object of the feedback system and introducing other innovations can lead to more effective feedback and help students improve learning In the article, I mainly draw on my experience as a teacher educator in Hong Kong, where I work with teachers from the school context (Grades 1–12), as well as empirical findings from some of my previous research

PREVALENT FEEDBACK PRACTICES IN HONG KONG (AND SIMILAR EFL CONTEXTS)

In my work as a teacher educator in Hong Kong, I constantly hear English language teachers complain about their marking, noting insufficient time to provide timely feedback to students; lack of satisfaction; and, more important, ineffectiveness of their feedback practices Feedback is traditionally given to single drafts in the product-oriented writing classroom, where writing topics are assigned, followed by brief input on grammar and vocabulary, and then in-class writing that takes place in relatively test-like conditions (Lo & Hyland, 2007) The predominant focus of teacher feedback is on errors (Lee, 2008b) as well as scores Although teachers usually write some comments on students’ texts, students are not required to revise their drafts for content and organization After receiving teacher written feedback, students are instructed to do “corrections” by copying out sentences that contain errors Teachers mark students’ corrections, and if further errors are spotted students do “re-corrections” by repeating the same procedure For errors where correct answers have already been provided by the teacher (i.e., direct error feedback), students can simply copy without thinking, whereas for errors that receive coded feedback, it is not uncommon to find students make

mistakes again in their corrections (some may even simply copy the codes as they do not know the correct answers) Students primarily play a passive role throughout the feedback process After finishing one piece of writing, the teacher assigns another topic not necessarily related to the previous one, and the cycle of teacher feedback and student corrections continues

Despite the huge amount of time invested in error feedback, many teachers feel that their efforts do not pay off Students, on the other hand, are generally discouraged by teacher feedback, which is inundated with red ink, and they tend to focus mainly on scores Lower proficiency students in particular are overwhelmed by teachers’

problematic area that leads to a no-win situation for teachers and students (Lee, 2009) My own research has provided evidence of unproductive written teacher feedback practices in Hong Kong (Lee,

2004, 2008b), and the study by Furneaux, Paran, and Fairfax (2007) points to similar feedback practices of EFL teachers in Cyprus, France, South Korea, Spain, and Thailand What is amiss in teacher feedback? How can we come to a clearer understanding of the conundrum? And what can be done to enhance the effectiveness of teacher feedback practices in EFL contexts? To answer these questions, I first turn to the teacher–student interaction in feedback from MLE perspectives and suggest viable alternatives with a view to improving current feedback practices

FEEDBACK AND MEDIATED LEARNING EXPERIENCE

Mediation, as a central Vygotskian sociocultural construct, suggests that our relationship with the world is mediated by tools—material and symbolic Vygotsky’s mediation theory, however, does not elaborate on the “activities of human mediators beyond their function

as vehicles of symbolic tools” (Kozulin, 2002, p 69) Such a void was filled by Feuerstein and his colleagues (Feuerstein, 1990; Feuerstein, Rand, & Hoffman, 1979; Feuerstein, Rand, Hoffman, & Miller, 1980; Feuerstein, Rand, & Rynders, 1988), who developed the theory of MLE to explain the differences in children’s cognitive development The premise of MLE is that human cognitive abilities are not fixed but can be modified based on appropriate forms of interaction and instruction (Presseisen, 1992) In education, MLE is an intervention approach intended to improve learning; in L2 studies, its application has recently been found in dynamic assessment (e.g., Anton, 2003; Kozulin & Garb, 2002; Lantolf & Poehner, 2011; Pe~na & Gillam, 2000; Poehner & Lantolf, 2005), which is derived from Vygotsky’s theory of

zone of proximal development and predicated on the dialectical relationship between assessment and instruction

Not every interaction among the learner, teacher, and learning material qualifies as a mediated learning interaction Three criteria must be met (Feuerstein et al., 1988): (1) intentionality/reciprocity, (2) transcendence, and (3) meaning Applied to feedback in writing, intentionality refers to the teacher’s deliberate effort to mediate feedback for students, directing their attention to the strategies

magnifying particular stimuli, sharpening certain focuses), as opposed

to the conventional unfocused or haphazard manner in which

interaction during which students are actively involved in the feedback

Transcendence refers to students’ ability to transfer learning from one feedback situation to another; through feedback, teachers achieve the purpose of “teaching through and beyond” (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006,

p 226) Finally, meaning refers to the significance of the interaction, achieved by the teacher helping learners interpret the significance of the task and what they have accomplished in writing, mediating a sense of achievement Feedback that provides meaningful learning experience is, therefore, able to help students understand their strengths and weaknesses in writing and what they can do to close the gaps (i.e., improve the weaknesses) in their writing

Because MLE stresses the interactive and collaborative nature of learning, conventional feedback typical for the teacher-dominated, product-oriented writing classroom in EFL contexts will inevitably fall short In conventional feedback approaches practiced in many EFL contexts (Furneaux et al., 2007; Yang, Badger, & Yu, 2006; Zhao, 2010), there is little intentional interaction between teacher and students during and after feedback During feedback, teachers respond to errors in an unfocused manner (i.e., without targeting for specific error patterns) and tend to provide correct answers or use error codes randomly After teachers have delivered feedback to single drafts, it is like “mission accomplished.” Reciprocity is lacking because students remain passive throughout; teacher–student conferences and

opportunities for redrafting, transcendence is unlikely; students are unable to transfer the lessons learned from feedback in one piece to

approaches lack meaning in MLE terms because students lose sight of the significance of feedback as a result of teachers’ overemphasis on students’ weaknesses in writing (through detailed error feedback) When students receive their papers awash in red ink, they are at a loss

and do not know what to focus on and how to make sense of the feedback Feedback tools, such as error codes, may not be useful if they are not infused with meaning and purpose

In order that feedback can provide MLE for students, teachers should leverage their role as mediators of learning by turning the feedback situation from perfunctory to intentional Instead of marking each piece of student writing in a similar manner, with the same attention given to all errors, teachers should respond to student writing with a clear purpose and specific focuses and share their feedback policy with students explicitly When responding to a recount, for instance, teachers can give feedback on areas highlighted

in prewriting instruction, such as whether students have included an orientation, provided a chronological sequence of events, and used the past tense to describe the past events To enhance reciprocity, it is important that students are provided with opportunities to interact with the teacher, for example, through negotiating the focuses of error feedback or conferencing To facilitate transfer (transcendence

in MLE terms), it is useful to ask students to set goals and reflect on their learning based on teacher feedback, and through multiple drafting they can transfer what is learned from one feedback situation

to another To render feedback meaningful, it is important that teachers provide diagnostic feedback to let students know what they have accomplished and what gaps there are in their writing (instead of merely marking all errors for students and ignoring other important

complemented by task-specific feedback forms can make feedback more meaningful, because such forms outline the success criteria in concrete terms and help evaluate student writing by indicating what they did well and less well with reference to the success criteria, also giving them a better idea about how they can close the gaps in their writing

Overall, MLE theory has indicated that conventional feedback practices in EFL contexts are ineffective due to the inadequate amount of mediation they provide Teachers’ focused, purposeful feedback that aligns with instruction (intentionality), active student

feedback (meaning) will be able to provide MLE for students

1 It is noteworthy that though a process approach is advocated, in this post-process era (see Atkinson, 2003) process pedagogy is not the only approach to help students write.

THE TEACHER FEEDBACK ACTIVITY FROM ACTIVITY THEORY PERSPECTIVES

Whereas MLE focuses on the role of the human mediator (i.e., the teacher, the teacher–student interaction, and the active role of the learner), AT emphasizes the sociocultural influences of human actions and practices (e.g., the provision of MLE through feedback)

as well as people’s role as agents in transforming themselves and social structures Originating from the work of Vygotsky (1987), who viewed knowledge as sociohistorically mediated, AT is increasingly understood as having direct relevance to teaching and learning (Leont’ev, 1981), because human thinking and learning do not occur

in a social vacuum but are instead shaped by the activities in which people participate To better understand human actions, it is crucial

to know the context in which actions are embedded Such actions form a system of activity, which is defined as “a conscious action directed at a goal, and this conscious action includes context: tools, people, history, and so forth” (Sam, 2012, p 84) The notion of activity was expanded by Engestr€om (1987) to include rules (i.e., norms and conventions), community (i.e., participants), and division

of labor (i.e., how roles are distributed horizontally within the community as well as the vertical division of power and status) In L2 education, although there has been a flourishing of research informed by principles of sociocultural theory in the last two decades, much less has been written about AT Recent L2 studies that draw on

AT have focused on L2 teachers’ writing practices (Nelson & Kim, 2001), peer revision (Thorne, 2004), modes of engagement in foreign language writing (Haneda, 2007), students’ writing strategies (Lei, 2008), and peer response stances (Zhu & Mitchell, 2012) The potential of AT as a heuristic that supports innovation in educational contexts has also been examined in recent educational research (Bourke & McGee, 2012; Helstad & Lund, 2012; Smagorinsky, Cook, Jackson, Moore, & Fry, 2004)

As a mediated activity in sociocultural terms, the teacher’s act of providing feedback does not take place in a social and cultural vacuum Informed by Engestr€om’s (1987, 2001, 2008a, 2008b) recent work on AT (referred to as third-generation AT, different from Vygotsky’s first-generation and Leont’ev’s second-generation AT), in giving feedback, teachers are the “subjects” motivated toward the

“object” (the target or orientation of the activity), that is, giving feedback to student writing, mediated by various instruments (also known as mediating artifacts), such as coded feedback and written commentary These mediating artifacts tend to be influenced by

teachers’ beliefs, knowledge, and prior learning experience In the conventional feedback activity system, for example, EFL teachers attach great importance to detailed error feedback and view feedback within a summative assessment paradigm (and hence their emphasis

on scores) Such belief is reinforced within the institutional context, which dictates impromptu timed writing to maximize practice for examinations, a product approach that encourages single drafting, and the need to observe the school policy, which comprises “rules” within the activity system Added to these are the expectations of key stakeholders within the community, including parents and school administrators, who tend to value quantity (over quality; hence the

preparation Teachers’ practices are constrained by the power relationship (division of labor) in schools, where teachers are reduced

to marking machines in the accountability system (part of teacher appraisal is based on teacher feedback to student writing), having to cater to school leaders, administrators, and parents (members of the community) and to meet their expectations (Lee, 2008b) Within the conventional feedback activity system in EFL contexts, more feedback means better (more hardworking and more responsible) teachers, and this prevents teachers from adopting a more selective and focused approach to error feedback in a process-oriented classroom Also, the long-existing policy (rule) that requires meticulous attention

to errors in writing makes it difficult for teachers to abandon the traditional error-focused practice, especially because all other teachers (community) are practicing this as a tried-and-trusted method The need to provide timely feedback, as another rule, results in the get-the-job-done mentality among some teachers who have to burn the midnight oil to finish their marking, during which time quality may have to be compromised For some teachers, although they may endorse the value of alternative feedback approaches such as focused error feedback in a process-oriented classroom, their beliefs come into direct conflict with the policy stipulated by the school (rule), and they remain powerless to initiate change because of the hierarchical relationships in schools and their lack of autonomy (community and division of labor) to implement change (Lee, 2008b) AT, therefore, sheds light on the tensions and paradoxes that exist within the conventional feedback activity system in EFL contexts

In order for more effective feedback practices to take place, the conventional feedback activity system needs to be transformed and a new teacher feedback activity system needs to be put in place The goal of AT, according to Thorne (2004), is “to define and analyze a given activity system, to diagnose possible problems, and to provide a framework for implementing innovations” (p 65) Capitalizing on the

essence of AT, that is, “to take a situation or condition and transform

it in an effort to create something qualitatively new” (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006, p 210), teachers could transform conventional feedback practices so as to improve student learning To achieve this goal, a number of innovations are in order

First, it is necessary to transform the object of feedback For teachers, the object is not simply to correct errors for students but to provide formative feedback to help students improve learning, to motivate them, and to make them autonomous writers in the long run (i.e., by providing mediated learning experience through feedback) For students, the object is not simply to get high scores from teacher feedback but to engage with, act on, and reflect on the feedback so as

to improve learning (i.e., intentionality/reciprocity in MLE terms) Fullan (2002) underlines the importance of clarity of purpose amid the complexity of change

Second, to achieve the new object, new mediating artifacts have to be introduced to the conventional feedback activity system Detailed error feedback will have to be replaced by feedback that is more informative and diagnostic, and error feedback that is more focused, to be delivered within a process-oriented classroom where students are involved in the feedback process through multiple drafting (which will enhance intentionality/reciprocity, transcendence and meaning in MLE terms) Third, to ensure that the new mediating artifacts will work in the new activity system, existing rules and division of labor need to be changed, marshaling opportunities for learning for both teachers and students: “Learning occurs whenever a novel practice, artifact, tool or

Lee, 2007, p 205) For example, existing rules that mandate a product approach to EFL writing have to be changed, so that new rules—like a process approach that entails multiple drafting and a greater emphasis

on prewriting instruction and postwriting feedback reinforcement— can be established In the new feedback activity system, the teacher and student roles have to be recast, so that students become active agents in charge of their own learning, whereby they set goals, engage

in self and peer evaluation, act on teacher and/or peer feedback, reflect on their learning, and set further goals for their own development (i.e., more meaningful in MLE terms) Changing the teacher and student roles in feedback essentially shifts the division of labor and affords new opportunities for developing new perspectives

on writing and student learning Specifically, division of labor also needs to be widened to afford a greater distribution of leadership and expertise Teachers have to be allowed autonomy to create new rules and develop ownership of their rules

Finally, to establish a new feedback activity system in the EFL writing classroom, there is a need to widen the community, for example, by teachers sharing feedback philosophy with parents and involving school administrators in the process of change Teachers also need to form a community of practice with their colleagues, share their goals and vision with regard to good feedback practices, and

professional dialogue and teacher learning so that they can develop a common vision about how feedback can best be used to improve student learning

To conclude, desired outcomes, as Thorne (2004) states, would entail “certain changes in the rules, division of labor, and mediating artifacts of the activity system to see their complete fruition” (p 64) Figure 1 gives a summary of the conventional feedback system in EFL writing classrooms (in normal font style) and possible innovations (in italics, indicating areas that are likely to improve with innovations introduced to the conventional feedback system; see Thorne, 2004)

CONCLUSION

While current feedback research is vibrant and multifaceted, it pays insufficient attention to the sociocultural forces that influence

Focused error feedback; peer evaluation; self-reflection; conferencing; task-specific feedback form

Mediating artifacts

Subject:

EFL writing

school teachers

Rules

Impromptu, timed writing

One-shot writing

Writing as a test

Primacy of written accuracy

Pre-writing instruction

Multiple drafting

Post-writing feedback

reinforcement

Community

Students, teacher, principal, and parents

Develop common vision Teachers involving community members in process of change

Division of labor

Teachers dominate feedback process; students remain passive

Teachers lack autonomy and are constrained by hierarchical relationships

Teacher sharing responsibility with students

Students as active agents Teachers given autonomy to develop new rules

Outcome

Little student engagement with teacher feedback

Students understand own strengths and weaknesses in writing Students know how to close their gaps

in writing

Providing feedback to student writing

Providing mediated learning experience through feedback

Object

FIGURE 1 The conventional feedback system in EEL writing classrooms and possible

innovations.

teaching and learning This article has argued that the theory of MLE

is able to yield new insights for EFL writing teachers regarding the teachers’ mediational role through giving purposeful, meaningful, and effective feedback in the process-oriented writing classroom, as well as the important role of the learners in teacher–student dialogic mediation As the components of the conventional feedback activity system (e.g., rules, division of labor) in EFL contexts are not compatible with the new object of providing MLE, the transformation

of the conventional feedback activity system is necessary Using AT perspectives, teachers can design innovations (including the provision

of MLE through feedback) to resolve contradictions within the conventional feedback activity system and bring improvement to the teaching and learning of writing in EFL contexts

Future research could benefit from socioculturally based studies that investigate teachers’ feedback practices in their work contexts Research could be conducted to explore how teacher education programs can prepare teachers for their mediational role—that is, how they can enhance the effectiveness of their feedback practices by putting MLE theory into practice Further research can also investigate feedback as an activity system and how teachers can bring innovation

to conventional feedback practices by using contradictions as an impetus for change Specifically, based on the problems identified in the conventional feedback system in the preceding section, research can draw on AT and investigate how EFL teachers (and students) participate in transformational actions, what they actually do to bring about change in conventional feedback practices, and how what they

do changes them in the process The possible innovations proposed in the article, informed by AT, can provide a conceptual framework to guide future studies

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This article is based on a research project supported by a grant from the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China (CUHK 448610).

THE AUTHOR

Icy Lee is a professor in the Faculty of Education at the Chinese University of Hong Kong She has published in international journals including ELT Journal, Journal of Second Language Writing, System, and Canadian Modern Language Review Her main research interests are second language writing and second language teacher education.